1 INTROdUCTION
Organizations are trying hard to keep the employees focused on their work and many studies have been conducted in this regard. Although, organizations are successful in this up to some extent but this gave birth to new challenge for the superiors to get the work done anyhow. e repercussions of this stress are so high that supervisors have started abusing their subordinates, which not only harm supervisor’s own image, self-respect of their subordinates but also the image of organization. in the recent past many organizations reported deviant workplace behaviours. robinson and Bennett (1995) developed the term “workplace deviance”. ey defined workplace deviance as “voluntary behavior that violates significant organizational norms and, in so doing, threatens the well-being of the organization or its members, or both” (robinson & Bennett, 1995, p. 556). erefore the concept of “workplace deviance” was designed to tap a large variety of behaviors that intended to give harm to the organization or the organizational members and address a wide variety of deviant behaviors. e current study tries to unfold various reasons behind the workplace deviance in the organizations. e workplace deviance is divided into two types – interpersonal and Organizational. e interpersonal deviance is the deviant behaviors of employees with their counterparts and the organizational deviance means the deviant behavior of employees due the dissatisfaction towards the norms and policies of the organization. e current study is the attempt to find out the effect of abusive supervision and depression on the deviant behaviors. it is true that mistreatment from the supervisor makes the employees distressed and even makes them depressed from their work. Depression is a condition in which a person feels debilitated, miserable, sad, unmotivated, or impartial in life when all is said in done. Abusive supervision means subordinates' perceptions of the extent to which their supervisors engage in the sustained display of hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviors. furthermore, such behaviours may result in to depression. for the purpose of this study the service organizations such as insurance and financial services, dealing directly with the customer and are considered highly stressed organizations were considered. it is further reported that 55% of the employees face
Journal of HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
www.jhrm.eu • iSSN 2453-7683
Analyzing the relationship between depression, abusive supervision
& organizational deviance: An SEM approach
Garima mathur, Abhijeet Singh Chauhan
A B ST r AC T
Workplace deviance means the intention or desire of the employees to cause harm to the organizations. in current era, organizations are facing the deviant behavior of employees because of that employees are not working properly, absenteeism is increasing and employees are having low level of belongingness towards their organization and the consequences of these issues are observed in the organizations in the form of lower productivity & high turnover rate. e current research was an attempt to find out the relationship between depression abusive supervision and organizational deviance. Confirmatory factor analysis was applied to confirm factors appeared through exploratory factor analysis. Structural equation modeling was applied to test the relationship between independent variables and dependent variable and also to develop a model. e results of the study indicated the significant impact of abusive supervision and depression on organizational deviance.
depression, abusive supervision, organizational deviance
K E Y W O r D S
J E L C o d e : m 1 2 , m 1 4
manuscript received 16 December 2017, Accepted 14 march 2018
CONTACT iNfOrmATiON:
Garima mathur / Prestige institute of management, Gwalior / india / [email protected]
workplace bullying, according to (“55% employees face bullying at workplace: Survey”, 2014). e study tried to explain the relationship between abusive supervision, workplace deviance and depression.
2 LITERATURE REVIEW
Yüksel (2012) conducted their research to find out the effects of perceptions of ethical work climate and organizational justice on workplace deviance as per the findings it was observed that perceptions of ethical work climate and the organizational justice play an important role in determination of organizational deviance in retail sector employees. Nair and Bhatnagar (2011) contended that philanthropic associations likewise encounter aberrance, and because of their novel qualities, they merit uncommon consideration for developing the comprehension of workplace deviant behavior to different sorts of associations.
Kozako, Safin and rahim, (2013) found the significant effect of abusive supervision on deviant workplace behavior but it was strong in the presence of work family conflict. Zorluet et al. (2014) determined that workplace deviance behavior has a negative impact on the organizational citizenship behavior and job satisfaction but while in the presence organizational support perception as a mediating variable it is showing a positive effect of workplace deviance behavior on the organizational citizenship behavior and job satisfaction.
rafiee (2015) investigated the relationship of the deviant workplace behavior
with the organizational justice and staff development results of the study revealed that deviant workplace behavior has a negative relationship with the staff development while staff development was treated as moderating variable between the relationships of organizational justice and deviant workplace behavior.
fagbohungbe et al. (2012) performed the study to measure the relationship between employees organizational reactions and deviant behaviors in workplace and found that male employees are significantly different from the female counterparts on the basis of production deviance, personal aggression, political deviance and property deviance while production deviance, personal aggression, political deviance were found higher in female counterparts. While Supervision, company identification, kinds of work, amount of work, co- workers, physical work conditions and financial rewards are the significant predictors of workplace deviant behaviors. Bodankin et al. (2009) investigated the interrelationship between constructive deviance, destructive deviance and personality results of the study shows that neuroticism and agreeableness were found to be related to both types of constructive deviance whereas conscientiousness as found to be associated with both types of destructive deviance, while agreeableness was related with interpersonal destructive deviance and openness was found to be related with organizational constructive behavior.
Ahmed, Kiyani and Hashmi (2016) performed their research on organizational cynicism, organizational injustice and breach of psychological contract and their effect on deviant workplace behaviors. e results show that organizational injustice, breach of psychological contract have significant and positive association with deviant work behavior and have an overall significantly positive impact on doctors' and nurses' deviant work behavior while organizational cynicism is having an insignificant effect on doctors’ and nurses deviant work behavior.
Boekhorst, Singh and Harrison (2015) investigated the relationship between Hrm practices, work intensity and workplace deviance while core self-evaluations were acting as moderating variable, results shows that Hrm practices are having indirect negative effect towards organizational deviance but it is not indirectly related to inter personal deviance and mediating effects of work intensity, core self-evaluations were found between the relationship of Hrm practices and organizational deviance and also a negative relationship was found between work intensity and organizational deviance. Holtz and Harold (2013) suggest that employees with strong interpersonal justice or the justice orientation are found to be more deviant despite of their interpersonal justice perceptions. Erkutlu and Chafra (2013) examined the cause and effect relationship between authentic leadership and organizational deviance while trust and psychological contract violation were treated as mediating variables. results of the study suggests that authentic leadership is significantly and negatively correlated with organizational deviance while positive mediating effects of trust and psychological contract violation were found between the relationship of authentic leadership and organizational deviance. reisel et al. (2010) examined the effects of Job insecurity on job satisfaction, OCB, deviant behaviors and negative emotions of employees (anxiety, anger and burnout) results of the study suggests that job insecurity is negatively related with job satisfaction, and have both direct and direct effects on OCB, deviant behaviors and negative emotions of employees (anxiety, anger and burnout).
3 MOdEL & HYPOTHESIS dEVELOPMENT
e conceptual model to be tested in this research is portrayed in the figure given below. e model deals with relationship between abusive supervision and depression, abusive supervision and organizational deviance, and depression and organizational deviance.
figure 1: Proposed model showing relationships among variables
1. Abusive supervision and depression
Very few studies have been done to measure the association between abusive supervision and depression. it has been observed that when the human faces some bad experiences in life they lose hope and get into depression (Haar, 2016). Employees who perceive abusive supervision report feeling irritation and fear of experiencing aggression from their supervisor in the future, and are more likely to be more aggressive against coworkers (Schat et al., 2006). Abusive supervision is also associated with employee depression (Tepper, 2000) and job strain (Harvey, Stoner, Hochwarter, & Kacmar, 2007). in past studies it has been observed that when the employee is mistreated then there are more chances of the employees getting depressed.
erefore it may be presumed that:
H1: Abusive supervision is positively related to depression among the employees
2. Abusive supervision and organizational deviance
interpersonal treatment is a driving factor in deviant behavior (robinson & Greenberg, 1998). Workplace experiences such as frustration, injustices, and threats to self are primary antecedents to employee deviance (Bennett & robinson, 2003). Ashforth (1997) suggested that abusive supervision promotes feelings of frustration, helplessness, and alienation. Tepper (2000) found that abusive supervision negatively influences perceptions of justice. us, abusive supervision is a likely antecedent of employee deviance.
erefore it may be presumed that:
H2: Abusive supervision is positively related to organizational deviance
3. depression and organizational deviance
Very few studies have been done in the past to measure the relationship between depression and organizational deviance. Amyx and Douglas (2016) conducted a study on the influence of salesperson depression, low performance, and emotional exhaustion on negative organizational deviance and the study focuses on an area that has received limited attention, individual-level factors that challenge salespeople (e.g., depression, emotional exhaustion, and low sales performance). ese factors which tend to make individuals more passive are more logical to connect strongly with NOD, which is also measured with negative, passive behaviors.
erefore it may be presumed that:
H3: Depression is positively related to organizational deviance
4 METHOdOLOGY
Study, Sample and data collection
The study was empirical in nature and survey method was used to collect the data. The population of the study included insurance sector employees working in executive level from Gwalior, a city in central india region. There are around 30 insurance companies and financial services operating in Gwalior employing more than 1000 employees in all.
in order to conduct the survey 230 questionnaires were distributed out of which 200 questionnaires were returned showing 91.3% response rate. After deleting incomplete responses, data for this study were obtained from 200 respondents. e questionnaires were rated on a five point Likert scale where 1 stands for strongly disagree and 5 stands for strongly agree. e sample size has been decided on the basis of 1:5, questions to respondent ratio. furthermore, the sample size of 200 is considered to be sufficient according to central limit theorem, where within the limit of 30 to 500 sample size more than 10% is recommended (Alreck & Settle, 1995).
Instrumentation:
e measures were adapted from existing scales available for all the variables
depression (α= 0.72)
it was measured using a scale developed by Kroenke, Spitzer and Williams (2001), the PHQ-9. is measure consists of ten items including items such as‘Feeling down, depressed, or hopeless’, ‘Feeling tired or having little energy’, ‘Feeling bad about yourself or that you are a failure, or have let yourself or your family down’.
Abusive Supervision (α= 0.72)
it was measured using a scale developed by Tepper (2000). is measure consists of eight items including items such as ‘Puts me down in front of others.’, ‘Doesn’t give me credit for jobs requiring a lot of effort’, ‘Tells me I’m incompetent’, ‘Expresses anger at me when he/she is mad for another reason’.
Organizational deviance (α = 0.70)
it was measured using a scale developed by Bennett and robinson (2000). is measure consists of Twelve items including items such as‘Taken property from work without permission’, ‘Come in late to work without permission’, ‘Neglected to follow your boss’s instructions’, ‘Used an illegal drug or consumed alcohol on the job’, ‘Taken an additional or longer break than is acceptable at your workplace’.
5 ANALYSIS
Reliability Analysis
reliability of all the constructs in the study (Depression, Abusive supervision, Organizational deviance) was established through computation of Cronbach’s Alpha reliability coefficient for each construct separately. Exploratory factor Analysis (EfA) was applied using Principle Components Analysis (PCA) as method of convergence and Kaiser as the method of normalization. CfA was applied to confirm the factors identified through EfA. Structural equation modeling was applied using AmOS 18 to check the relationship between independent variable & dependent variable and to test the model.
Kaiser – Meyer – Olkin Measures of Sampling Adequacy and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity:e results are shown in the Table 1:
Table 1: Kaiser – meyer – Olkin measures of sampling adequacy and Bartlett’s test of sphericity
Kaiser – meyer – Olkin measures of Sampling Adequacy test was applied to check the adequacy of the sample in other words that data was normally distributed or not if the value of KmO lies between 0.5 to 1 then data is normally distributed. from the table we can see that all the measures having the value greater than 0.5 hence the data is quite adequate to consider it for factor analysis. Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity test was applied to check the null hypothesis that item- to- item correlation matrix was an identity matrix. The hypothesis was tested through Chi- Square test; the values of Chi- Square for Depression (93.938), Abusive Supervision (78.062) and Organizational deviance (145.270), all are significant at 0% level of significance. Therefore, null hypothesis was rejected, indicating that the item- to- item correlation matrix is not an identity matrix and therefore data of all the measures were suitable for the factor analysis.
S.No. Variable Name KmO Bartlet’s Test of Sphericity Significance
Value (Chi Square Value) Level
1. Depression 0.742 93.938 0.000
2. Abusive Supervison 0.748 78.062 0.000
Factor Analysis
Principle component factor analysis with Varimax rotation was applied to find out the underlying factors of the questionnaire. The factor analysis for Depression resulted in 3 factors; factor analysis for Abusive Supervision resulted in 3 factors, factor analysis for Organizational deviance resulted in 5 factors. The details about factors, the factor name, Eigen value, and items converged; factor lodgings and variance% are shown in Table 2, 3 & 4:
depression
Table 2: Depression
e scale was developed and extracted by marc Corbiere (2014) and various factors were emerged namely, Organizational culture, lack of empathy, Stress, Poor work climate, Emotional instability, lack of interest, Prejudices, High performance expectations. in this study the data emerged in to three factors which were stress (f1), Emotional instability (f2) and Lack of interest (f3).
Table 3: Abusive supervision
e scale was developed and extracted by Samatha Kemper (2016) and various factors were emerged namely, Workplace mistreatment, Destructive leadership, interpersonal conflicts, Bullying, Social undermining, Derogation of targets.
in this study the data emerged in to three factors which were Workplace mistreatment (f1), Destructive leadership (f2) and Social undermining (f3).
Depression items factor 1 factor 2 factor 3
Little interest or pleasure in doing things. .882
feeling down, depressed, or hopeless. .784
Trouble falling or staying asleep, or sleeping too much. .718
feeling tired or having little energy .800
Poor appetite or overeating. .692
feeling bad about yourself or that you are a failure, or have let yourself
or your family down. .652
Trouble concentrating on things, such as reading the newspaper
or watching television. .576
moving or speaking so slowly that other people could have noticed.
Or the opposite - being so fidgety or restless that you have been moving around
a lot more than usual. .833
oughts that you would be better off dead, or of hurting yourself in some way. .662
Eigen value 2.323 2.283 1.092
% of variance explained 25.816 25.368 12.132
Abusive Supervision items factor 1 factor 2 factor 3
Puts me down in front of others .729
invades my privacy .781
reminds me of my past mistakes and failures .928
Doesn’t give me credit for jobs requiring a lot of effort .558
Breaks promises he/she makes .774
Expresses anger at me when he/she is mad for another reason .647
is rude to me .725
Tells me i’m incompetent .853
Eigen value 2.207 1.944 1.188
Organizational deviance
Table 4: Organizational deviance
e scale was developed and extracted by rebecca. J. Bennet (2000) and misbah Nasir (2012) and various factors were emerged namely, frustration, Normlessness, Perceived injustice, machiavellianism, Low job involvement, Lower job satisfaction, Organizational injustice, Lower citizenship behavior, Organizational environment, Violation of rules. in this study the data emerged into five factors which were Low Job involvement (f1), Normlessness (f2), Lower Job satisfaction (f3), Lower Citizenship behavior (f4), Violation of rules (f5).
Confirmatory factor analysis
figure 1: Depression
After applying EfA on Depression 3 factors were identified Stress (4 items) and Emotional instability (4 items) and Lack of interest (1 item). CfA was applied and to improve goodness fit some items were dropped from some of
Organizational Deviance items f1 f2 f3 f4 f5
Taken property from work without permission. .805
Spent too much time fantasizing or daydreaming
instead of working. .866
falsified a receipt to get reimbursed for more money
than they spent on business expenses. .839 Taken an additional or longer break than is acceptable
at your workplace.
Come in late to work without permission .786 Littered the Workplace deviance.
Neglected to follow your boss’s instructions. .783 intentionally worked slower than he/she could have worked. .584
Discussed confidential company information with an unauthorized person.
Used an illegal drug or consumed alcohol on the job. .841
Put little effort into his/her work. .604
Dragged out his/her work in order to get overtime .896
Eigen value 2.119 1.936 1.842 1.829 1.103
the factors. e final composition of factors after CfA two factors were remained Stress (2 items) and Emotional instability (3 items) erefore the final measure of Depression had five items converged. first of all goodness of fit indices were evaluated to test the model. Chi square value was found to be 2.572 significant at .632 ≥ .05 indicating that the model was having a good fit. Similarly the Cmin/df value was .643 which was less than 2 indicating that the model was a good fit. e value of other goodness of fit indices such as Gfi was 0.992 ≥ 0.9 as well as AGfi (.971) Nfi (.933), Cfi (1.000), TLi (1.125) were all above 0.9 as well as the parsimony values i.e. PNfi (.573) and PCfi (.682) were higher than 0.5 indicating a good fit. e badness of fit index rmSEA was .000 which is lower than 0.5 also indicating good model fit.
figure 2: Abusive supervision
After applying EfA on Abusive supervision 3 factors were identified, Workplace mistreatment (4 items), Destructive leadership (3 items) and Social undermining (1 item ). CfA was applied and to improve goodness fit some items were dropped from some of the factors. e final composition of factors after CfA two factors were remained Workplace mistreatment (4 items) and Destructive leadership (3 items) erefore the final measure of Abusive supervision had seven items converged.
figure 3: Organizational Deviance
After applying EfA on Abusive supervision 3 factors were identified, Workplace mistreatment (4 items), Destructive leadership (3 items) and Social undermining (1 item ). CfA was applied and to improve goodness fit some items were dropped from some of the factors. e final composition of factors after CfA two factors were remained Workplace mistreatment (4 items) and Destructive leadership (3 items) erefore the final measure of Abusive supervision had seven items converged.
first of all goodness of fit indices were evaluated to test the model. Chi square value was found to be 1.782 significant at .776 ≥ .05 indicating that the model was having a good fit. Similarly the Cmin/df value was .446 which was less than 2 indicating that the model was a good fit. e value of other goodness of fit indices such as Gfi was 0.995 ≥ 0.9 as well as AGfi (.980) Nfi (.960), Cfi (1.000), TLi (1.159) were all approximately above 0.9 as well as the parsimony values i.e. PNfi (.584) and PCfi (.540) were higher than 0.5 indicating a good fit. e badness of fit index rmSEA was .000 which is lower than 0.5 also indicating good model fit.
Structural equation modeling was applied to test the model having Depression and Abusive supervision as independent variables and Organizational deviance as dependent variable. To fulfill the objective first impact of Depression on Abusive supervision was calculated and then impact of Abusive supervision and depression on Organizational deviance was calculated.
initially model fit was evaluated based upon different criteria’s such as: Chi Square was found to be 56.340 with a p-value of .282 which is ≥ .05 indicating that the model was having a good fit. e finding was also supported by value of Cmin/df (1.105) which was less than 2. e other goodness of fit statistics also supports the overall goodness of fit, as the value of Gfi was 0. .936, Nfi, Cfi and TLi was 0.864, 0.985, 0.980 respectively all are approximately ≥0.9. Parsimony values i.e. PNfi (.668) and PCfi (.761) higher than 0.5.e badness of fit index rmSEA value was also ≥ 0.05 i.e 0.028 indicating a good model fit.
e results of regression weights are given below in Table 5.
Table 5: results of regression weights
6 dISCUSSION ANd CONCLUSIONS
Table 5 shows that the regression value between Abusive supervision as independent variable and Depression as dependent variable was 0.068 significant at p value of 0.000. e regression value between Abusive supervision as independent variable and Organizational deviance as dependent variable was .343 significant at p-value of .004. e regression value between Depression as independent variable and Organizational deviance as dependent variable was 3.833 significant at p-value of .001.
us the results of the study show the positive and significant relationship between Depression, Abusive supervision and Organizational deviance. e results of the study tested through three hypotheses given below:
Table 5: results of regression weights
relationships Estimate S.E. C.r. P
Depression <--- Abusive supervision .068 .018 3.691 ***
Organizational deviance <--- Depression 3.833 1.190 3.221 .001
Organizational deviance <--- Abusive supervision .343 .118 2.903 .004
Hypotheses relationship
(P<0.05) Significance result Explanation
H1:
Abusive supervision is positively related to Depression
H2:
Abusive supervision is positively related to Organizational deviance
H3:
Depression is positively related to Organizational deviance Positive Positive Positive Significant (.000) Significant (.004) Significant (.001) Supported Supported Supported
e P value is Less than 0.05 which means that there is a significant and positive relationship between abusive supervision and
depression i.e. more the abusive supervision, more will the chances of the employees getting depressed in workplace
e P value is Less than 0.05 which means that there is a significant and positive relationship between abusive supervision and
e results of the study were found consistent with the findings of Haar (2016), Schat et al. (2006), Tepper (2000), and Harvey et al. (2007). ey also observed a positive relationship between abusive supervision and depression. Similarly the positive relationship of Abusive supervision and Organizational deviance was found to be consistent with the findings of various authors including robinson and Greenberg (1998), Bennett and robinson (2003), Ashforth (1997), and Tepper (2000). As well as the positive relationship of Depression and Organizational deviance were found consistent with the findings of Amyx and Douglas (2016).
Workplace deviance is voluntary behavior that violates significant organizational norms and, in doing so, threatens the well-being of the organization or its members, or both. in the current organizational context deviant behavior of employees is the major concern for the employers and the whole industry. ere are many antecedents that cause the deviant behavior among employees but in the current study we considered depression and abusive supervision as its antecedents. Employees are facing various issues in their day to day lives like they are suffering from depression which is a result of poor working conditions, long working hours, Abusive supervision and less work life balance. e final results of the study revealed that there is a significant and positive effect of abusive supervision on depression as well as there is a significant and positive effect of depression and abusive supervision on organizational deviance.
rude and violent supervision on a regular basis put employees into a depressive situation and may cause various deviant behaviors. it is recommended to the supervisors that they should be humble and cordial towards their employees while supervising.
Future research directions and limitations
first, the current study was done on the executives working in insurance sector companies of Gwalior region. e research can be conducted in different sectors and other areas to examine the change of results and understand the subjective nature of organizational deviance.
Second, small sample size was adopted in the current study due to time constraints and some situational factors also, thus a large sample size can be taken in the future researches.
REFERENCES
55% employees face bullying at workplace: Survey (2014). Business Today (Nov. 2014). retrieved from h t t p s : / / w w w. b u s i n e s s t o d a y. i n / c u r r e n t / c o r p o r a t e / e m p l o y e e s f a c e b u l l y i n g a t w o r k p l a c e -survey/story/212647.html
Aasland, m. S., Skogstad, A., Notelaers, G., Nielsen, m. B., & Einarsen, S. (2010). The prevalence of destructive lead-ership behaviour.British Journal of Management,21, 438-452.
Ahmed, W., Kiyani, A., & Hashmi, S. H. (2013). The study on organizational cynicism, organizational injustice & breach of psychological contract as the determinants of deviant work behavior.Actual Problems of Economics,
2, 145-154.
Al-Qaisy, L. m. (2011). The relation of depression and anxiety in academic achievement among group of university students.International Journal of Psychology and Counselling,3(5), 96-100.
Amyx, D., & Jarrell, L. (2016). The influence of salesperson depression, low performance, and emotional exhaustion on negative organizational deviance.Journal of Managerial Issues,28(4), 124-144.
An, f., & Wang, B. (2016). Abusive supervision and counterproductive work behavior: moderating effect of negative affectivity.Journal of Service Science and Management,9(1), 66-73.
Aunola, K., Stattin, H., & Nurmi, J. E. (2000). Parenting styles and adolescents’ achievement strategies.Journal of ado-lescence,23(2), 205-222.
Campbell, W. K., Hoffman, B. J., Campbell, S. m., & marchisio, G. (2011). Narcissism in organizational con-texts.Human Resource Management Review,21(4), 268-284.
Caplan, r. P. (1994). Stress, anxiety, and depression in hospital consultants, general practitioners, and senior health service managers.British medical journal,309(6964), 1261-1263.
Chiamaka, O., Oguegbe, T. m., & Aguanunu, r. (2014). Exploratory study of job insecurity and entrepreneurial in-tention as correlates of counterproductive work behaviour.International Journal of Academic Research in Busi-ness and Social Sciences,4(5), 41-52.
Dollman, A. (2013). Narcissism in the workplace and its effects on an organization.DSM-5, American Psychiatric Association, 696-670.
Erkutlu, H., & Chafra, J. (2013). Effects of trust and psychological contract violation on authentic leadership and or-ganizational deviance.Management Research Review,36(9), 828-848.
ferris, D. L., Brown, D. J., & Heller, D. (2009). Organizational supports and organizational deviance: The mediating role of organization-based self-esteem.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,108(2), 279-286. Gallagher, E. C. (2009). Narcissism and forgiveness as moderators of organizational justice and workplace
counter-productive computer use. University of Nebraska at Omaha. retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/250832319/abstract/7A83D7f33D2141A3PQ/1
Gharrett, A. J., & Smoker, W. W. (1991). Two generations of hybrids between even-and odd-year pink salmon (On-corhynchus gorbuscha): A test for outbreeding depression?.Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sci-ences,48(9), 1744-1749.
Goncalo, J. A., flynn, f. J., & Kim, S. H. (2010). Are two narcissists better than one? The link between narcissism, perceived creativity, and creative performance.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,36(11), 1484-1495. Gregory, B. T., Osmonbekov, T., & Gregory, S. T. (2009). Abusive supervision and organizational citizenship
behav-iors: An examination of potential boundary conditions: Working paper series. http://franke.nau.edu/images/up-loads/fcb/09-11.pdf.
Hamid, r. A., Juhdi, N. H., ismail, m. D., & Abdullah, N. A. (2016). Abusive supervision and workplace deviance as moderated by spiritual intelligence: An empirical study of Selangor employees.Geografia: Malaysian Journal of Society and Space,12(2), 191-202.
Henschel, C. (2014). The effects of parenting style on the development of narcissism.Behavioral Health,1(1), 100-140.
Husain, W., Gulzar, A., & Aqeel, m. (2016). The mediating role of depression, anxiety and stress between job strain and turnover intentions among male and female teachers.FWU Journal of Social Sciences,10(1), 48-85.
Judge, T. A., LePine, J. A., & rich, B. L. (2006). Loving yourself abundantly: relationship of the narcissistic person-ality to self-and other perceptions of workplace deviance, leadership, and task and contextual performance. Jour-nal of Applied Psychology,91(4), 762-775.
Kaltiala-Heino, r., rimpelä, m., marttunen, m., rimpelä, A., & rantanen, P. (1999). Bullying, depression, and sui-cidal ideation in finnish adolescents: school survey.British medical journal,319(7206), 348-351.
Kneebone, i. i. & Dunmore, E. (2000). Psychological management of post-stroke depression.British Journal of Clin-ical Psychology,39, 53-65.
Kozako, i. N. A. m. f., Safin, S. Z., & rahim, A. r. A. (2013). The relationship of big five personality traits on coun-terproductive work behaviour among hotel employees: An exploratory study.Procedia Economics and Finance,7, 181-187.
Lerner, D., Amick iii, B. C., Lee, J. C., rooney, T., rogers, W. H., Chang, H., & Berndt, E. r. (2003). relationship of employee-reported work limitations to work productivity.Medical Care,41(5), 649-659.
Li, Z. (2015). The analysis of the influences of student’s narcissistic personality traits to negative mentoring experi-ences’.Creative Education,6(3), 350-358.
meier, L. L., & Semmer, N. K. (2012). Lack of reciprocity and strain: Narcissism as a moderator of the association between feeling under-benefited and irritation.Work & Stress,26(1), 56-67.
mitchell, m. S., & Ambrose, m. L. (2007). Abusive supervision and workplace deviance and the moderating effects of negative reciprocity beliefs.Journal of Applied Psychology,92(4), 1159-1168.
Nair, N., & Bhatnagar, D. (2011). Understanding workplace deviant behavior in nonprofit organizations.Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 21(1), 289–309.
Najvani, B. D., Neshatdoost, H. T., Abedi, m. r., & mokarian, f. (2015). The effect of acceptance and commitment therapy on depression and psychological flexibility in women with breast cancer.Zahedan Journal of Research in Medical Sciences,17(4), 29-33.
O’reilly, C. A., Doerr, B., Caldwell, D. f., & Chatman, J. A. (2014). Narcissistic CEOs and executive compensation.The Leadership Quarterly,25(2), 218-231.
organizational citizenship behavior.Journal of Applied Psychology,87(6), 1068-1076.
Pflanz, S. E., & Ogle, A. D. (2006). Job stress, depression, work performance, and perceptions of supervisors in mil-itary personnel.Military medicine,171(9), 861-865.
Poon, J. m. (2011). Effects of abusive supervision and coworker support on work engagement.International Pro-ceedings of Economics Development & Research,22, 8-22.
Qureshi, S. U., Ashfaq, J., ul Hassan, m., & imdadullah, m. (2015). impact of extroversion and narcissism on in role and extra role performance: moderating role of impression management motives.Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences,9(1), 96-119.
rafferty, A. E., & restubog, S. L. D. (2011). The influence of abusive supervisors on followers’ organizational citi-zenship behaviours: The hidden costs of abusive supervision.British Journal of Management,22, 270-285. rafiee, m., Hoveida, r., & rajaeipoor, S. (2015). The relationship of the deviant workplace behavior with the
orga-nizational justice and staff development in the universities of tehran.International Journal of Human Resource Studies,5(1), 126-140.
reisel, W. D., Probst, T. m., Chia, S. L., maloles, C. m., & König, C. J. (2010). The effects of job insecurity on job sat-isfaction, organizational citizenship behavior, deviant behavior, and negative emotions of employees. Interna-tional Studies of Management & Organization,40(1), 74-91.
rode, J. C., Judge, T. A., & Sun, J. m. (2012). incremental validity of core evaluations in the presence of other self-concept traits: An investigation of applied psychology criteria in the United States and China.Journal of Leader-ship & Organizational Studies,19(3), 326-340.
Saks, A. m., & Ashforth, B. E. (1997). Organizational socialization: making sense of the past and present as a pro-logue for the future.Journal of Vocational Behavior,51(2), 234-279.
Wu, S., & Cao, K. (2015). Abusive supervision and work-family conflict: The mediating role of emotional exhaus-tion.Journal of Human Resource and Sustainability Studies,3(4), 171-178.
Wu, T. Y., & Hu, C. (2009). Abusive supervision and employee emotional exhaustion: Dispositional antecedents and boundaries.Group & Organization Management,34(2), 143-169.
Yousefi, f., Talib, m. A., mansor, m. B., Juhari, r. B., & redzuan, m. r. (2010). The relationship between test-anxi-ety and academic achievement among iranian adolescents.Asian Social Science,6(5), 100-105.
